Gujarat Plus - Gujarat on Web

Damning the Beneficiary Wednesday, February 28, 2001

AHMEDABAD: You receive a gift from someone. Something goes wrong with it, can you, the beneficiary, file a complaint or should the company or the person who gifted it do it? This interesting case under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) first cropped up at the district forum and then before the State Commission.

J Subramaniam is a journalist and author. He was gifted a pager by M/s Computer Consultancy Centre in return for his services. The pager was in the possession of the journalist from the time it was purchased.

According to the Consumer Protection Act, Section 12, Clause (a), a complaint can be filed by the consumer to whom the goods are sold, delivered or to whom services are rendered and not the beneficiary. Subramaniam, the beneficiary, who received the pager on November 29, 1995, the day it was bought by Computer Consultancy Centre, hence couldn't file the complaint. It should have been filed by the Computer Consultancy Centre. This dispute arose over whether the journalist could file the complaint or the company which had gifted him the pager.

M/s RPG Paging Services Ltd, which sold the pager to the Computer Consultancy Centre, maintained before the district forum, Chennai South, that the centre, and not the journalist, should have filed the complaint when the service was disconnected. The district forum concluded that Subramaniam was a consumer under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act which defines a consumer as one who hires or avails himself / herself of any services... and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or himself / herself avails of such services.

Subramaniam's complaint, which the district forum upheld as he was considered a consumer, was that the RPG Paging Services had disconnected the service although he had paid Rs 1,470 as registration and subscription charge on August 17, 1996. The service was resumed on August 20, 1996. This amounted to deficiency in service for which he was awarded Rs 3,000 as compensation and Rs 500 towards costs. The paging company appealed against this award to the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Redressal Commission, Chennai, presided over by Justice JE Bellie with SV Kandaswami and Angel Arulraj as members. The case was decided on April 13, 1999.

The Commission upheld the district forum's verdict. One of the three members in the State Commission, SV Kandaswami, while concurring with the other two, was of the opinion the compensation should be higher for a journalist as disconnecting a journalist's pager without prior intimation would interfere with his work. As journalists are the "eyes and ears of a democracy", the disconnection resulted in non-receipt of important, timely and urgent messages.

The RPG people, on the other hand, explained the reason for delay as payment for reconnection was made after office hours of August 17, 1996. And, the next day was Sunday. On the following Monday, the amount was credited to the journalist's pager account and the pager was reactivated on August 20, 1996.

In a different case at Ahmedabad, a consumer activist was invited to France. Their bank in Ahmedabad delayed crediting the cheque money to him. The foreign bank demanded permission from the sponsor that he should be allowed to file a complaint. Once the letter was obtained from the sponsor in France, the dispute was resolved amicably without taking the arduous course of litigation to a consumer court.

 

This site is dedicated to our friend Younus M, who passed away on 28th Sept 00, and left on us an indelible memories ! - Team GujaratPlus.com

[P] Privacy Policy | © Copyright 2000-2006 |

Designed & Hosted by eZee Web Solutions